About Us

Don Pearce

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:12:12 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:52:38 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:28 GMT, wrote:

That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.

I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong.

Here is an article you may be interested in reading then:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Aren't lawyers great? Any time you put together more than two words on
a page, they will disagree about the meaning.

I see that you can't make cogent rebuttals of the information but
have to attack the persons that wrote it.

There was no content to rebut. Just a couple of people going blah -
like you might hear in any British pub approaching closing time.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

dave weil

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:02:32 GMT, wrote:

Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?

The words "well regulated" may be a clue.

Those words do not necessarily mean government regulations. A
well regulated clock is one that is functioning properly.

In the document that's the basis for a government, I would suggest
that regulation has a specific legal meaning. This wasn't a document
on how to fix clocks.

dave weil

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:05:36 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 07:49:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:28 GMT, wrote:

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage
what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States
unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms,
forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from
abridging
that right.

If only the Constitution had been written by English teachers
chuckle.

He made a big mistake in his anaylsis though. In trying to prove that
the sentence was unconditional, he assumed a state of unconditionality
in the beginning as part of his argument.

Big no-no.

When did you gain your credentials and from what institution?

The institution of common sense and The Institute For Detecting
Circular Logic.

I'll bet that you're a graduate of "Scaredy-Cat U", right?

[email protected]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:14:54 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:12:12 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:52:38 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:28 GMT, wrote:

That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.

I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong.

Here is an article you may be interested in reading then:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Aren't lawyers great? Any time you put together more than two words on
a page, they will disagree about the meaning.

I see that you can't make cogent rebuttals of the information but
have to attack the persons that wrote it.

There was no content to rebut. Just a couple of people going blah -
like you might hear in any British pub approaching closing time.

I thought you might be open for discussion but it turns out that
you have made up your mind and that you will reject anything that
doesn't conform to your preconceptions. My mistake for king you had
an open mind.

dave weil

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:08:13 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 07:34:49 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:41:13 GMT, wrote:

The intention is State security against outside agression. The means
is a citizen's militia. A "well regulated" one. Regulated by who?
Presumably the elected government. Thats what governments do,
regulate things. If you don't WANT regulation, fine. But the
constitution demands it.

Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?

Ummm, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary", that's
where.

Since when does that demand that the stand alone part of the
sentence be modified?

Maybe it's the urgency of the word "necessary". Or maybe it's putting
it first. That seems to be many rightists' arguments about the
relative importance of the Bill of Rights.shrug

dave weil

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:10:05 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 07:32:34 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:37:25 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I'm thinking of this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the State
to be secure. No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

The intention is State security against outside agression.

Not necessarily. Don't forget, they had just fought against "their
government".

A government that tried to disarm them individually. That is why
it is a "right of the people" and not a right of any governing body.

In the context of a "well-regulated militia" of course. That's why
they put it first and used the phrase "necessary to the security of a
free State".

Well, also in the context of non-repeating front-loading single shot
bulky weapons.

dave weil

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:14:54 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:12:12 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:52:38 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:28 GMT, wrote:

That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.

I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong.

Here is an article you may be interested in reading then:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Aren't lawyers great? Any time you put together more than two words on
a page, they will disagree about the meaning.

I see that you can't make cogent rebuttals of the information but
have to attack the persons that wrote it.

There was no content to rebut. Just a couple of people going blah -
like you might hear in any British pub approaching closing time.

d

You should have just said, "On your bike, Jimmy"...

[email protected]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:12:13 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:02:32 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:48:30 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:41:13 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:37:25 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I'm thinking of this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the State
to be secure. No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

The intention is State security against outside agression. The means
is a citizen's militia. A "well regulated" one. Regulated by who?
Presumably the elected government. Thats what governments do,
regulate things. If you don't WANT regulation, fine. But the
constitution demands it.

Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?

The words "well regulated" may be a clue.

Those words do not necessarily mean government regulations. A
well regulated clock is one that is functioning properly.

Individuals holding guns in the present ad hoc manner is clearly
totally unregulated. A well-reguated militia would be one that trains
regularly, obeys a command structure and understands the nature of its
potential enemy. It will also have strict rules of engagement with the
designated enemy. Private citizens taking pot shots at other private
citizens (for whatever reason) is the antithesis of well-regulated.

So, you want a government controlled armed force like the
National Guard that is a branch to the regular army then? One that is
directly commanded by those that might be the ones that are
tyrannizing the general citizenry.

A good solution would be to allow continued gun ownership, but keep
the guns locked at the militia headquarters, to be distributed in time
of national need.

Like General Gage tried to do to the colonists and then attempt
to confiscate them when he thinks they are all accounted for and the
"rebels" can be made more compliant to the governing body.

So that the government can control the weapons and can effectively
have them confiscated when they want to enforce some draconian law
that they have come up with? Why do you want the government to be
able to control ones personal property? Why do you want people to
have ask the government permission to go hunting? Why do you want the
law abiding citizen effectively disarmed against criminals when
criminals will not obey this or any other law?
Why do you want the general citizenry disarmed? Are you a
criminal that wants easier prey?

[email protected]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:21:04 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:05:36 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 07:49:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:28 GMT, wrote:

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage
what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States
unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms,
forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from
abridging
that right.

If only the Constitution had been written by English teachers
chuckle.

He made a big mistake in his anaylsis though. In trying to prove that
the sentence was unconditional, he assumed a state of unconditionality
in the beginning as part of his argument.

Big no-no.

When did you gain your credentials and from what institution?

The institution of common sense and The Institute For Detecting
Circular Logic.

I'll bet that you're a graduate of "Scaredy-Cat U", right?

I see that you have run out of cogent replies and are reduced to
attacking the poster rather than the content.

[email protected]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:28:34 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:14:54 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:12:12 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:52:38 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:28 GMT, wrote:

That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.

I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong.

Here is an article you may be interested in reading then:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Aren't lawyers great? Any time you put together more than two words on
a page, they will disagree about the meaning.

I see that you can't make cogent rebuttals of the information but
have to attack the persons that wrote it.

There was no content to rebut. Just a couple of people going blah -
like you might hear in any British pub approaching closing time.

d

You should have just said, "On your bike, Jimmy"...

I see that you really have nothing to contribute other than your
disparaging remarks.

Don Pearce

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:34:07 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:12:13 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:02:32 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:48:30 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:41:13 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:37:25 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I'm thinking of this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the State
to be secure. No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

The intention is State security against outside agression. The means
is a citizen's militia. A "well regulated" one. Regulated by who?
Presumably the elected government. Thats what governments do,
regulate things. If you don't WANT regulation, fine. But the
constitution demands it.

Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?

The words "well regulated" may be a clue.

Those words do not necessarily mean government regulations. A
well regulated clock is one that is functioning properly.

Individuals holding guns in the present ad hoc manner is clearly
totally unregulated. A well-reguated militia would be one that trains
regularly, obeys a command structure and understands the nature of its
potential enemy. It will also have strict rules of engagement with the
designated enemy. Private citizens taking pot shots at other private
citizens (for whatever reason) is the antithesis of well-regulated.

So, you want a government controlled armed force like the
National Guard that is a branch to the regular army then? One that is
directly commanded by those that might be the ones that are
tyrannizing the general citizenry.

The stated purpose of said militia is the protection of democracy.
That would be your democratically elected government. A bunch of
citizenry who decide to go shoot up congress because they don't like
it are anti democratic. So no weapons - easy.

A good solution would be to allow continued gun ownership, but keep
the guns locked at the militia headquarters, to be distributed in time
of national need.

Like General Gage tried to do to the colonists and then attempt
to confiscate them when he thinks they are all accounted for and the
"rebels" can be made more compliant to the governing body.

So that the government can control the weapons and can effectively
have them confiscated when they want to enforce some draconian law
that they have come up with? Why do you want the government to be
able to control ones personal property? Why do you want people to
have ask the government permission to go hunting? Why do you want the
law abiding citizen effectively disarmed against criminals when
criminals will not obey this or any other law?
Why do you want the general citizenry disarmed? Are you a
criminal that wants easier prey?

Did you know that in the average year in the US, by a huge majority,
most people who get shot are shot with their own weapon? If it were
only the criminals who had guns, everybody else would be far safer,
and I guess you wouldn't mind too much if a few crims shot themselves?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

dave weil

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:37:38 GMT, wrote:

He made a big mistake in his anaylsis though. In trying to prove that
the sentence was unconditional, he assumed a state of unconditionality
in the beginning as part of his argument.

Big no-no.

When did you gain your credentials and from what institution?

The institution of common sense and The Institute For Detecting
Circular Logic.

I'll bet that you're a graduate of "Scaredy-Cat U", right?

I see that you have run out of cogent replies and are reduced to
attacking the poster rather than the content.

Well, as much as *your* comment was, I guess.

I just didn't take it as a serious question. YMMV.

I didn't know that we had to include credentials to make clear points
about things...

dave weil

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:39:10 GMT, wrote:

Here is an article you may be interested in reading then:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Aren't lawyers great? Any time you put together more than two words on
a page, they will disagree about the meaning.

I see that you can't make cogent rebuttals of the information but
have to attack the persons that wrote it.

There was no content to rebut. Just a couple of people going blah -
like you might hear in any British pub approaching closing time.

d

You should have just said, "On your bike, Jimmy"...

I see that you really have nothing to contribute other than your
disparaging remarks.

Geez, you *are* a humourless (Brit spelling intentional) git, aren't
you?

I already made a "non-humorous" reply that you couldn't respond to in
a substantive fashion. Why should I bother beating (or shooting, in
your case) a dead horse?

PS, I love the part where Schulman tries to pretend that bias can be
left out of the whole thing (bias either way, I might add). If that
wasn't a loaded set of questions (and pre-prep phone calls, I might
add), I don't know what is.

However, the professor is certainly free to express his opinion, but
for Schulman to try and turn that into some sort of "absolute proof"
of how the framers would interpret the 2nd Amendent in the context of
Mac-10s, terrorism, bloodshed on the streets, is a bit of a stretch.
Note that up to now, I've tried to refrain from trying to assert what
they might think about the current situation, but if you keep throwing
stuff like this up, I might have to toss some rebuttals in myself...

Don Pearce

On Fri, 04 May 2007 07:49:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:28 GMT, wrote:

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage
what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States
unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms,
forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from
abridging
that right.

If only the Constitution had been written by English teachers
chuckle.

He made a big mistake in his anaylsis though. In trying to prove that
the sentence was unconditional, he assumed a state of unconditionality
in the beginning as part of his argument.

Big no-no.

I wonder how a British language expert would weigh in though, since
"American useage" was still in its infancy and they were far more
British than current day American. I think that everyone agrees that,
in terms of an Americanism, it's deficient. I wonder if it falls under
an acceptable British construction (I highly doubt it). Chances are,
it's just a poorly-worded sentence.

Maybe I'll watch some Masterpiece Theare and see if anything similar
comes up g.

Well, I think we need to assume that - badly worded or not - they
didn't put the stuff about a militia in there because they thought the
document was looking a bit thin. It was there because it mattered.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jerry Peters

In rec.audio.pro Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dsldotpipexdotcom wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:49:17 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.

10th Amendment. Please indicate which specific enumeration of power would
allow such a ban.

Surely the American government restricts gun ownership in certain
cases? Convicted criminals, incomptent people, etc.?

Anyway, they need to do what's right, not hide behind the
constitution. It isn't Holy Writ.

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

Jerry

Don Pearce

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dsldotpipexdotcom wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:49:17 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.

10th Amendment. Please indicate which specific enumeration of power would
allow such a ban.

Surely the American government restricts gun ownership in certain
cases? Convicted criminals, incomptent people, etc.?

Anyway, they need to do what's right, not hide behind the
constitution. It isn't Holy Writ.

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jerry Peters

In rec.audio.pro Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dsldotpipexdotcom wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:49:17 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.

10th Amendment. Please indicate which specific enumeration of power would
allow such a ban.

Surely the American government restricts gun ownership in certain
cases? Convicted criminals, incomptent people, etc.?

Anyway, they need to do what's right, not hide behind the
constitution. It isn't Holy Writ.

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

d

Read the first amendment, it says congress may not establish a
religion. "Established religion" had a very specific meaning to the
writers of the constitution, one where the clergy were directly
supported by the government, and in some cases were government
officers. They did not exclude religion from the government, just
making _one_ religion preminent. Note especially the "free exercise
thereof" clause.

Jerry

Don Pearce

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:59:59 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dsldotpipexdotcom wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:49:17 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.

10th Amendment. Please indicate which specific enumeration of power would
allow such a ban.

Surely the American government restricts gun ownership in certain
cases? Convicted criminals, incomptent people, etc.?

Anyway, they need to do what's right, not hide behind the
constitution. It isn't Holy Writ.

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

d

Read the first amendment, it says congress may not establish a
religion. "Established religion" had a very specific meaning to the
writers of the constitution, one where the clergy were directly
supported by the government, and in some cases were government
officers. They did not exclude religion from the government, just
making _one_ religion preminent. Note especially the "free exercise
thereof" clause.

Jerry

But the purpose of this amendment was to prevent any religion from
gaining a foothold within government. There were good reasons for this
- they did not want to import a huge amount of bigoted unpleasantness
from Europe. Bush has totally gone against the spirit of this
amendment by involving the Christian ministry at the heart of his
government. The purpose of this amendment was as much "freedom from"
as "freedom of" religion.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Scout

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:49:17 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.

10th Amendment. Please indicate which specific enumeration of power would
allow such a ban.

Surely the American government restricts gun ownership in certain
cases? Convicted criminals, incomptent people, etc.?

How do those specific issues concern a gun ban applied to the general
population?

Anyway, they need to do what's right, not hide behind the
constitution. It isn't Holy Writ.

I accept your admission there is no such Constitutional authority. However,
you are perfectly right. The Constitution isn't a Holy Writ. However, let's
consider for a second what a massive violation of the Constitution may mean.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Scout

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dsldotpipexdotcom wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:49:17 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.

10th Amendment. Please indicate which specific enumeration of power
would
allow such a ban.

Surely the American government restricts gun ownership in certain
cases? Convicted criminals, incomptent people, etc.?

Anyway, they need to do what's right, not hide behind the
constitution. It isn't Holy Writ.

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

Cite please that religion was excluded from government.

[email protected]

[email protected]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 12:39:55 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:37:38 GMT, wrote:

He made a big mistake in his anaylsis though. In trying to prove that
the sentence was unconditional, he assumed a state of unconditionality
in the beginning as part of his argument.

Big no-no.

When did you gain your credentials and from what institution?

The institution of common sense and The Institute For Detecting
Circular Logic.

I'll bet that you're a graduate of "Scaredy-Cat U", right?

I see that you have run out of cogent replies and are reduced to
attacking the poster rather than the content.

Well, as much as *your* comment was, I guess.

I just didn't take it as a serious question. YMMV.

Did you see any smileys?

I didn't know that we had to include credentials to make clear points
about things...

You seem to think that you know more than a college professor. If
you think that then you need to provide your credentials.

Scout

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:59:59 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dsldotpipexdotcom wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:49:17 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.

10th Amendment. Please indicate which specific enumeration of power
would
allow such a ban.

Surely the American government restricts gun ownership in certain
cases? Convicted criminals, incomptent people, etc.?

Anyway, they need to do what's right, not hide behind the
constitution. It isn't Holy Writ.

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

d

Read the first amendment, it says congress may not establish a
religion. "Established religion" had a very specific meaning to the
writers of the constitution, one where the clergy were directly
supported by the government, and in some cases were government
officers. They did not exclude religion from the government, just
making _one_ religion preminent. Note especially the "free exercise
thereof" clause.

Jerry

But the purpose of this amendment was to prevent any religion from
gaining a foothold within government.

Wrong. EVERY session of Congress including the first has been opened by a
prayer given by a member of the church. If the idea was to prevent any
religion within government then why did many of the very men who drafted,
debated, argued, considered, wrote, and ratified the 1st Amendment raise no
protest at this immediate introduction of religion? Because the 1st does NOT
prohibit religion within government. Indeed the practice of religion within
government would clearly be covered under the free exercise clause. What it
says and what it was meant to do was to prevent the establishment of a state
religion such as occurred with the Church of England. They did not want the
Church to be established or controlled by the State. Nothing more. Indeed
the idea of "Separation of Church and State" has nothing to do with
preventing all interaction but is rather a statement concerning control. The
State shouldn't be controlled by the Church, and the Church shouldn't be
controlled by the State. It does not mean a member of government can't go to
church, nor does it mean a preacher can't be elected to government office.
Though I might tend to consider election to the Office of President to
possibly be an exception to that. Sorry, a separation of church and state
has to do with control, not interaction.

Scout

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:52:55 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

The whole militia argument is bogus anyway. You need a militia until
the country is sufficiently organised to maintain a specialised army.

Except the whole idea was that the federal government would NEVER maintain
a
specialized army or any army in a time of peace.

OK. So times have changed.

Yep, but until you get the Constitution changed, the protection exists and
covers all of the people, not just those in the militia, which also exists
under the law.

You're not going to get the US Army
disbanded, even if it doesn't meet your reading of the constitution.

Sad but true, but just because on violation exists and is likely to continue
to exist is hardly reason to permit others, much less give up the primary
defense against a standing army being misused by an abusive or tyrannical
government.

It doesn't, I think, prohibit a professional army.

It certainly does for one funded by the federal government, though the
states could do so with the permission of Congress.

You're infering
that intention. Fine. Now infer the intention behind the right to
bear arms. (Clue: ...that bit about a militia.)

It's a good and valid reason, not a limitation.

Scout

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:47:51 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote:

The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics.
It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be
ignored.

Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self
defence.

Odd,..."shall not be infringed". Seems pretty broad and all incompassing
to
me.

It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the
purpose of maintaining an armed militia.

Sorry, I am unable to find the grammatical linkage limiting the protection
to this one and only purpose. Can you provide a structured analysis in
which
you establish this limitation linkage you assert exists?

I'm thinking of this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

So am I. Now present your analysis as requested.

Any other use of a gun is
unconstitutional.

Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the
2nd did not apply.

That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.

I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong.

I'll give you a hint. There isn't one. Indeed the entire BOR was considered
by some to be unnecessary and redundant since none of the items protected
were able to be violated by the federal government since they had no
authority or enumerated power to do so.

Many others felt that codifying that and confirming the federal government
had no such authority or power was a good idea.....they were right as events
have proven.

[email protected]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:31:12 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dsldotpipexdotcom wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:49:17 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.

10th Amendment. Please indicate which specific enumeration of power would
allow such a ban.

Surely the American government restricts gun ownership in certain
cases? Convicted criminals, incomptent people, etc.?

Anyway, they need to do what's right, not hide behind the
constitution. It isn't Holy Writ.

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

Where? Show us where in the Constitution it says that there
shall be no religion. It says that there "shall be no law respecting
an establishment of religion". In other words there shall be no
government mandated state religion like the King established the only
one religion that could be practiced and that all others would be
persecuted.

Scout

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I'm thinking of this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the State
to be secure.

No, they want the FREE state to be secure. The tyannical, oppresive, harsh,
or abusive state was not intended nor desires to be secured. Hence why the
militia is necessary to secure a free state to prevent the implimentation of
these other states.

No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

True, but given that the state exists to serve the people, a people not
secure against governmental abuses are not in a free state.

The intention is State security against outside agression.

As well as against State tryanny.

The means
is a citizen's militia.

Yep.

A "well regulated" one. Regulated by who?

No one, any one, everyone. Well regulate is a phrase which according to
historical useage indicates something which is functioning as it should and
in a proper manner. It doesn not mean regulated by governmental control.

Presumably the elected government.

That would be a false presumption.

Thats what governments do,
regulate things.

However, doing so doesn't mean they are "well regulated" though their
efforts of regulation can tend to accomplish that objective or not depending
on the nature of the regulation. A well regulated shotgun, or a well
regulated clock, or a well regulated electorate had nothing to do with an
order imposed by governmental legislation, but denoted something that was
functioning properly and correctly.

If you don't WANT regulation, fine. But the
constitution demands it.

For the militia but not in the 2nd and not for the people. The people are
the ones with the right to arms. So regulating the militia will do nothing
about the people who have arms.

Scout

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:41:13 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:37:25 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I'm thinking of this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the State
to be secure. No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

The intention is State security against outside agression. The means
is a citizen's militia. A "well regulated" one. Regulated by who?
Presumably the elected government. Thats what governments do,
regulate things. If you don't WANT regulation, fine. But the
constitution demands it.

Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?

The words "well regulated" may be a clue.

Only if your presumption is correct. Is it?

[email protected]

On Fri, 04 May 2007 21:09:10 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:59:59 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dsldotpipexdotcom wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:49:17 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its
constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose.

10th Amendment. Please indicate which specific enumeration of power would
allow such a ban.

Surely the American government restricts gun ownership in certain
cases? Convicted criminals, incomptent people, etc.?

Anyway, they need to do what's right, not hide behind the
constitution. It isn't Holy Writ.

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

d

Read the first amendment, it says congress may not establish a
religion. "Established religion" had a very specific meaning to the
writers of the constitution, one where the clergy were directly
supported by the government, and in some cases were government
officers. They did not exclude religion from the government, just
making _one_ religion preminent. Note especially the "free exercise
thereof" clause.

Jerry

But the purpose of this amendment was to prevent any religion from
gaining a foothold within government.

It was there to prevent the government from declaring a state
religion.

There were good reasons for this
- they did not want to import a huge amount of bigoted unpleasantness
from Europe.

The "bigoted unpleasantness" is what most of them left in Europe.

Bush has totally gone against the spirit of this
amendment by involving the Christian ministry at the heart of his
government. The purpose of this amendment was as much "freedom from"
as "freedom of" religion.

No, it isn't. And I see that you have outed yourself as a Bush
hater too.

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

With your seeming little knowledge of what you think you know, I
wouldn't be to enthusiastic to use you for much other than to consult
where to put my next crap.

Scout

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:02:32 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:48:30 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:41:13 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:37:25 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I'm thinking of this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the State
to be secure. No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

The intention is State security against outside agression. The means
is a citizen's militia. A "well regulated" one. Regulated by who?
Presumably the elected government. Thats what governments do,
regulate things. If you don't WANT regulation, fine. But the
constitution demands it.

Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?

The words "well regulated" may be a clue.

Those words do not necessarily mean government regulations. A
well regulated clock is one that is functioning properly.

Individuals holding guns in the present ad hoc manner is clearly
totally unregulated.

Yet some of those are well regulated. Sure, they aren't regulated by
government but by internal controls but the source is irrelevent the
objective of being well regulated is the goal. Indeed, consider for a moment
one organization. The Boy Scouts of America. They are a well regulated
organization, yet not because of governmental regulation or legislation.
They are well regulated because they have established for themselves rules,
standards and codes of conduct that result in a well regulated organization.
Some people have even do so in a more militarized fashion intended to insure
they are a well regulated militia even though Congress neglicts it's
responsibilities in this matter.

A well-reguated militia would be one that trains
regularly, obeys a command structure and understands the nature of its
potential enemy.

Which we have, and some of which aren't even under government legislation to
do so.

It will also have strict rules of engagement with the
designated enemy. Private citizens taking pot shots at other private
citizens (for whatever reason) is the antithesis of well-regulated.

Depends on if they are well regulated or not. Just because one is a private
citizen does not mean one can not join or establish a well regulated
organization independent of governmental regulation or legislation.

A good solution would be to allow continued gun ownership, but keep
the guns locked at the militia headquarters, to be distributed in time
of national need.

And what if that national need is the overthrow of, or independence from, a
tyrannical government?

That is after all the reason we are an independent nation today, and it was
that government's attempt to seize these central stores of arms that
resulted in armed conflict occurring.

Further, one last thought, consider the recent events in New Orleans and
FEMA....are you suggesting we should rely utterly upon the government to
produce needed aid and supplies when needed in an emergency and in a timely,
efficient and satisfactory means?

or the LA riots. Where was government aid and support then?

Sorry, I prefer to retain my own arms thus I know exactly where they are
when needed for a time of local, state, or national need and can be readied
in a matter of moments to deal with such events....not days, weeks or months
later.

Scout

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:34:07 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:12:13 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:02:32 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:48:30 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:41:13 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:37:25 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I'm thinking of this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the
State
to be secure. No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

The intention is State security against outside agression. The means
is a citizen's militia. A "well regulated" one. Regulated by who?
Presumably the elected government. Thats what governments do,
regulate things. If you don't WANT regulation, fine. But the
constitution demands it.

Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?

The words "well regulated" may be a clue.

Those words do not necessarily mean government regulations. A
well regulated clock is one that is functioning properly.

Individuals holding guns in the present ad hoc manner is clearly
totally unregulated. A well-reguated militia would be one that trains
regularly, obeys a command structure and understands the nature of its
potential enemy. It will also have strict rules of engagement with the
designated enemy. Private citizens taking pot shots at other private
citizens (for whatever reason) is the antithesis of well-regulated.

So, you want a government controlled armed force like the
National Guard that is a branch to the regular army then? One that is
directly commanded by those that might be the ones that are
tyrannizing the general citizenry.

The stated purpose of said militia is the protection of democracy.

Wrong. The stated purpose to the protection of the free state. That state
may be a democracy, or it could be a republic such as we are, or any other
sort of free state.

That would be your democratically elected government.

Like Hitler and his party were democratucally elected?

A bunch of
citizenry who decide to go shoot up congress because they don't like
it are anti democratic.

Yep, if that government is oppressive and tyrannical then the people have
the right to change, alter or abolish it.

So no weapons - easy.

Thus allowing the holocaust to proceed.......12 million dead.

A good solution would be to allow continued gun ownership, but keep
the guns locked at the militia headquarters, to be distributed in time
of national need.

Like General Gage tried to do to the colonists and then attempt
to confiscate them when he thinks they are all accounted for and the
"rebels" can be made more compliant to the governing body.

So that the government can control the weapons and can effectively
have them confiscated when they want to enforce some draconian law
that they have come up with? Why do you want the government to be
able to control ones personal property? Why do you want people to
have ask the government permission to go hunting? Why do you want the
law abiding citizen effectively disarmed against criminals when
criminals will not obey this or any other law?
Why do you want the general citizenry disarmed? Are you a
criminal that wants easier prey?

Did you know that in the average year in the US, by a huge majority,
most people who get shot are shot with their own weapon?

Yep, suicide is a major issue in that. Are you also aware that a lot of
people kill themselves with their own medications as well? Or their own car?
Or their own razor blades? Or anything else used for suicide?

If it were
only the criminals who had guns, everybody else would be far safer,

False assumption based on facts not in evidence.

and I guess you wouldn't mind too much if a few crims shot themselves?

Not in the least. IMO a person has the right to kill themselves if they
chose to do so, provided they do not endanger, harm, or kill others in the
process.

If you want to take a boat load of medication and kill yourself, feel free.
If you are a criminal, so much the better, not only do we no longer have to
waste money convicting you and then punishing you, but others are safer from
crime.

Scout

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:02:32 GMT, wrote:

Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?

The words "well regulated" may be a clue.

Those words do not necessarily mean government regulations. A
well regulated clock is one that is functioning properly.

In the document that's the basis for a government, I would suggest
that regulation has a specific legal meaning. This wasn't a document
on how to fix clocks.

That specific legal meaning is based upon the understood meaning of the
time, such as that illustrated by the well regulated clock.

Further for that matter there is also a specific legal meaning and
difference between "the people" and "the militia". Yet, you seem willing to
ignore that issue.

Les Cargill

Don Pearce wrote:

On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote:

The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics.
It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be
ignored.

Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self
defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the
purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is
unconstitutional.

d

Amendments cannot be interpreted as a restriction on people - that is
reserved for ordinary law. Amendments are to be interpreted as a
restriction on the powers of government. The standalone
sentence at the last is self-sufficient enough that there will
always be people who read it that way. That's the "the right...
shall not be infringed" part.

The "embarrassing second" is one a' those things, though...

--
Les Cargill

Scout

"dave weil" wrote in message
news

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:41:13 GMT, wrote:

The intention is State security against outside agression. The means
is a citizen's militia. A "well regulated" one. Regulated by who?
Presumably the elected government. Thats what governments do,
regulate things. If you don't WANT regulation, fine. But the
constitution demands it.

Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?

Ummm, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary", that's
where.

That isn't a demand for regulation, not in the way you mean it.

Scout

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:10:05 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 07:32:34 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:37:25 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I'm thinking of this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the State
to be secure. No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

The intention is State security against outside agression.

Not necessarily. Don't forget, they had just fought against "their
government".

A government that tried to disarm them individually. That is why
it is a "right of the people" and not a right of any governing body.

In the context of a "well-regulated militia" of course.

Which doesn't mean controlled by the government. Otherwise the revolution
could never have occured since the militia were traitors to their
government.

Scout

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:28 GMT, wrote:

That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted
any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.

I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong.

Here is an article you may be interested in reading then:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Aren't lawyers great? Any time you put together more than two words on
a page, they will disagree about the meaning.

Depends on how you define two. Is that one word repeated twice or separate
words?

:-)

John-Melb

On May 5, 2:27 am, dave weil wrote:

Well, also in the context of non-repeating front-loading single shot
bulky weapons. - Hide quoted text -

That's completely correct Dave, and "freedom of speech" only applies
to the spoken word or words written with a quill pen!

FAAAAAARCK!

Under your arguement there is NO freedom of speech for any word
transmitted by electronic means?

I can see they've changed the medication at the Giggling Academy
again.

dave weil

On Fri, 04 May 2007 21:48:43 GMT, wrote:

Did you know that I have been around in this group for over ten
years and I have heard just about every angle that the gun control
advocates can come up with? You are showing me nothing new. You
should lurk for a while before you run your mouth.

If it were
only the criminals who had guns, everybody else would be far safer,
and I guess you wouldn't mind too much if a few crims shot themselves?

The criminals would be a lot safer and the law abiding would not.

I see that you are another Aussie by the way you refer to
criminals. What is it with you Aussies that want so much for the
United States to be like you, being subjects and all.

You might want to lurk awhile longer before running your mouth, since
Mr. Pierce is on the other side of the globe from Australia. If you
want to know how to get to his house, turn right at Greenland.

Guess you don't know as much as you think you do, bucko.

dave weil

On Fri, 04 May 2007 21:51:12 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 12:39:55 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:37:38 GMT, wrote:

He made a big mistake in his anaylsis though. In trying to prove that
the sentence was unconditional, he assumed a state of unconditionality
in the beginning as part of his argument.

Big no-no.

When did you gain your credentials and from what institution?

The institution of common sense and The Institute For Detecting
Circular Logic.

I'll bet that you're a graduate of "Scaredy-Cat U", right?

I see that you have run out of cogent replies and are reduced to
attacking the poster rather than the content.

Well, as much as *your* comment was, I guess.

I just didn't take it as a serious question. YMMV.

Did you see any smileys?

Whatever this non sequitur means.

I didn't know that we had to include credentials to make clear points
about things...

You seem to think that you know more than a college professor.

I can read what he said.

That should be good enough for Your Highness.

dizzy

wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:21:04 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:05:36 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 07:49:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:28 GMT, wrote:

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage
what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States
unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms,
forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from
abridging
that right.

If only the Constitution had been written by English teachers
chuckle.

He made a big mistake in his anaylsis though. In trying to prove that
the sentence was unconditional, he assumed a state of unconditionality
in the beginning as part of his argument.

Big no-no.

When did you gain your credentials and from what institution?

The institution of common sense and The Institute For Detecting
Circular Logic.

I'll bet that you're a graduate of "Scaredy-Cat U", right?

I see that you have run out of cogent replies and are reduced to
attacking the poster rather than the content.

Sorry, but you're a ****ing idiot.

Before you say it, yes, I've run out of cogent replies and am reduced
to attacking the poster rather than the content.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do the Thiele-Small laws move design quality differences over to the drivers?	Don Pearce	Tech	3	October 10th 05 06:50 AM
* Do the unwritten laws of EQ-ing allow this?	Phillip Moreau	Pro Audio	63	October 10th 03 02:31 AM

Menu

About Us